Why aren't abusive priests excommunicated?

[noma]

So…this ephemeral Church of Christ you believe in…do all its members share in the same beliefs?

No. And I hope they never will. The dogma is all the same for the whole of the Church. But other particular beliefs are left open to interpretation. And should be. We are one in the important sense, we are one under Christ. We are still, and should still be diverse. For anyone that would act to remove diversity in that which is not from the mouth of Christ, or the intent of Christ, would be unloving in their actions.

And the Holy Spirit, not the pope, leads all to truth. Just maybe not all fast enough for this lifetime.

If someone teaches error, he is doing so through means other than inspiration by the Holy Spirit, because God is Truth, and cannot contradict Himself.

And this is why I refuse to be part of the Roman Church. For the things it claims to be from the Church of Christ I find to be unacceptable, I find to be wrong. So the Roman Church cannot be the Church of Christ. It is just a human institution.

 

[puzzleannie]

I Edited to add: By the way… this is important to the thread in that one answer to why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated might be because the Roman Church does not have the power to excommunicate. This might also be the reason Lutherans and others are not truly excommunicated.

except for the fact that first the supposition that abusive priests are not or have not been excommunicated must be substantiated. no one has given any evidence to support that statement. in actual fact, when canon law warrants, such priests have been excommunicated and that is a matter of record. If you want a thread to debate the authority of the Catholic Church to impose this discipline, then start one. This is not that thread.

 

[SemperUbiSubUbi]

No. And I hope they never will. The dogma is all the same for the whole of the Church. But other particular beliefs are left open to interpretation. And should be. We are one in the important sense, we are one under Christ. We are still, and should still be diverse. For anyone that would act to remove diversity in that which is not from the mouth of Christ, or the intent of Christ, would be unloving in their actions.

And the Holy Spirit, not the pope, leads all to truth. Just maybe not all fast enough for this lifetime.

And this is why I refuse to be part of the Roman Church. For the things it claims to be from the Church of Christ I find to be unacceptable, I find to be wrong. So the Roman Church cannot be the Church of Christ. It is just a human institution.

I won’t ask what you consider to be these core dogmas that must be believed. My contention is that ANY falsehood is not from the Spirit. Certainly there is freedom in those things which have not been fully revealed. But things either are true, or are not. Mary is either Immaculately Conceived, or she is not. Contraception is either morally wrong, or it is not. Christ is either truly present in the Eucharist, or He is not.(Making every Catholic guilty of violating the first commandment) Should we pretend these disagreements don’t matter?

And I never said the pope lead into all truth. I merely claimed (as the Church has for thousands of years, and as the Bible teaches) that he is protected from error by the grace of the Spirit.

Finally, I find your closing statements to be telling. YOU find to be unacceptable. YOU find to be wrong. Therefore the “Roman” Church must be wrong. As an earlier poster pointed out, you disagree, therefore WE must be wrong. Despite the textual evidence that our core beliefs go back to the time of the Apostles and their successors? Are you so sure of your guidance by the Holy Spirit?

 

[noma]

I won’t ask what you consider to be these core dogmas that must be believed. My contention is that ANY falsehood is not from the Spirit. Certainly there is freedom in those things which have not been fully revealed. But things either are true, or are not. Mary is either Immaculately Conceived, or she is not. Contraception is either morally wrong, or it is not. Christ is either truly present in the Eucharist, or He is not.(Making every Catholic guilty of violating the first commandment) Should we pretend these disagreements don’t matter?

And I never said the pope lead into all truth. I merely claimed (as the Church has for thousands of years, and as the Bible teaches) that he is protected from error by the grace of the Spirit.

Finally, I find your closing statements to be telling. YOU find to be unacceptable. YOU find to be wrong. Therefore the “Roman” Church must be wrong. As an earlier poster pointed out, you disagree, therefore WE must be wrong. Despite the textual evidence that our core beliefs go back to the time of the Apostles and their successors? Are you so sure of your guidance by the Holy Spirit?

See new post.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I think that the real problem for why the Roman Church has failed to deal properly with this problem (though excommunication would not qualify as proper) is because it has a false belief in its own infallibility.

I disagree. In fact, I would assert that you attempt to ascribe greater infallibilty – if not omniscience – to the Church than she does herself.

It is easy, with hindsight, to blame the bishops of twenty, thirty, forty and more years ago for failing to recognize the nature of the psychological disorder of those desiring sexual contact with minors – The expert psychologists themselves did not recognize it. And so the bishops treated it as a moral problem, requiring repentance and forgiveness.

It is likewise easy, with hindsight, to blame the bishops for believing the psychological disorder could be overcome and men could be returned to ministry – But that is what the experts told them, when they did eventually recognize the disorder.

It is not fair to attribute to those in the past knowledge they cannot reasonably be expected to have had.

:twocents:
tee

 

[yinekka]

Puzzle Annie, thank you for attempting to answering my question and not going off on a tangent.

abusive priests are subject to canon law which applies to them, including if and when appropriate laicization and excommunication.

Can a priest be excommunicated if found guilty of sexual abuse of a child or adolescent?

Can you direct me to some sources which give a balanced account of this matter e.g. Cardinal Law’s role in the sexual abuse crisis. His name is cited everywhere as the ‘bad guy’ in all this. As an Australian I am not across all of the details of his story and the thread I mentioned is now asking about his role in the late pope’s funeral, his ‘reward’ from Rome etc and I just don’t have the knowledge to present a balanced answer.

 

[puzzleannie]

there are links to canon law on the vatican website among others, but it probably takes somebody knowledgeable to find what you are looking for, it would be like looking at books on Texas state law to find out how this state would handle such a case.

there is an entire section on the priesthood, I really don’t think you want to read the whole thing here. Yes, priests that earned these penalties under canon law were excommunicated and receive the other punishments their crimes merit under canon law.

the question that is not being asked is what is the appropriate treatment for a priest who has been found guilty of abuse. What the Church has done is follow the canon law process in each individual case. The penalty is laicization, certainly far harsher than excommunication. Bear in mind that once a priest is laicized, “fired” so to speak, the Church has no more authority over him and no way to track where he is. If a man has that personality disorder that makes him an abuser, a disorder than science now seems to say is incurable (the opposite of what psychiatrists were saying 20 yrs ago) then excommunication would hardly be effective in stopping the abuse. The point in deciding how each individual case should be handled is first protecting the innocent victims, and then the spiritual care of the priest, which is the goal of canon law.

there have also been several links published here on the threads that discuss the sex abuse crisis to sites that track individual cases. I see no point in rehashing what has been covered here many times before.

Cardinal Law has never been accused of abusing anyone. He has been accused of referring abusive priests for psychiatric treatment–the universal prescribed way of responding to such cases at that time–and relying on the word of professionals in that treatment field that these men were cured and could safely be reassigned. On hindsight, given better psychiatric knowledge applied today, those decisions were wrong. Cardinal Law received no reward. he was in effect deposed from one of the most prestigious bishoprics in the world and reassigned to a post that is a definite downward, not even lateral “promotion”.

 

[Corki]

Puzzle Annie, thank you for attempting to answering my question and not going off on a tangent.

abusive priests are subject to canon law which applies to them, including if and when appropriate laicization and excommunication.

Can a priest be excommunicated if found guilty of sexual abuse of a child or adolescent?

Can you direct me to some sources which give a balanced account of this matter e.g. Cardinal Law’s role in the sexual abuse crisis. His name is cited everywhere as the ‘bad guy’ in all this. As an Australian I am not across all of the details of his story and the thread I mentioned is now asking about his role in the late pope’s funeral, his ‘reward’ from Rome etc and I just don’t have the knowledge to present a balanced answer.

I am not Annie and have nowhere near her experience but I will venture this: Yes, I believe a priest could be excommunicated for abuse IF he remained unrepentant or IF he obstinately refused to cooperate under obedience to his Bishop. I don’t believe there is any sin that carries the penalty of excommunication after a person has repented and confessed. In fact, excommunications can be lifted and the first step to lifting an excommunication is Sacramental Confession.

We do not, and should not, have any information on the state of Cardinal Law’s soul. I have no reason to believe that he did not repent of any role he had in the cover-ups. Although he is often mentioned as the “bad-guy” I have never read of any accusations that he himself was involved in abuse only, possibly, in cooperation with sinful activity. Even so, he was demoted from his post as Archbishop of a major US diocese and given a post with no power and no perks. This was not a “reward”. If anything, it was a move for a Cardinal that is similar to moving a troublesome priest to an out of the way country parish.

The Church cannot un-make him a Cardinal. She could laicize him, I guess, but if “once a priest, always a priest”, then “once a Bishop, always a Bishop”. As a living Cardinal, he should have taken part in the Pope’s funeral and the conclave, to do otherwise would have been disrespectful to the late Pope, the Church and the Holy Spirit. The role of Cardinal is one of great responsibility, especially at the time of conclaves, and not to be taken lightly.

 

[Corki]

I am not Annie and have nowhere near her experience but I will venture this: .

And evidently she types faster than I do too.

 

[BlazingBolt]

I think Jesus has made no promise to the popes, anymore than he has made to all Christians who follow His will.

Of course you only believe this because you were unable to accept the Church’s teaching on ABC and the rest came down like a house of cards. Didn’t you say if you found out the Church claimed infallibility on this teacing you would abandon ABC immediately? Instead you abandoned the Church.

All Christian who follow his will are infallible? Or is it just you? The Church has always followed God’s will, how do you think you are more infallible than the Church which includes many great Saints. Are there any Non-Catholic Saints?

What it comes down to is that you can not accept that ABC is a sin so the Church must be wrong and you must be right.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Though this isn’t really the place for it, I think the Gospel of Matthew would have something to say about that. He made promises, concrete promises to Peter, to His Apostles, and to the Church built upon them. To assume that YOU must be right, in the face of 2000 years of constant teaching, sounds a bit more like the arrogant belief in infallibility that you accuse the church of than what the Church actually believes. Jesus made no guarantees that you, noma, 2000 years after His birth, would have the complete guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Gates of Hell would not stand against you. He did to His Church.

This sounds like a circular argument:

1. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.
2. The church is still here after 2000 years.
3. Noma’s church can’t be 2000 years old because noma isn’t part of the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against (in the Gospel of Matthew).

I don’t want to ruin your day, but if noma’s church teaches what the bible teaches, it doesn’t matter how old the name of noma’s church is. It is the same one that Christ founded on the confession of St. Peter, that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

That the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium is infallible. That ex cathedra (and even some non-ex cathedra) statements of the pope are infallible.

I disagree with the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
I disagree a lot with the pope.

I think that many of the supposedly infallible positions from the magisterium, proffered by the Roman Church, are false, and what is worse, unloving.

You answered my question but I still fail to make the the connection you are making with regard to the magisterium and the problem with abusive priests.

What I’m getting from what you are saying (over-all in this thread) is that you disagree with the church and or don’t like Her. And that ends up being your answer to every question. It’s hardly a thoughtful answer.